Tuesday, January 14, 2014

This Morning's Interview, Let the Administration Tell You What You're Thinking

Here is the link to the interviews from WBEZ this morning. Please note what Thomas Wogan is saying about a variety of issues, particularly his claims that the "majority" of Chicago State's faculty don't agree with the views of the CSU Faculty Voice.



  1. Contrary to the narrative of the administration, I am not actually the omnipotent overlord of the blog. Any tenured/tenure track faculty can post. That has been the policy since 2009. But on a campus with such a climate of fear, un-tenured faculty are reluctant to step forward. Those familiar with the academy would know academics welcome the debate and as an academic, I want more faculty to participate, not fewer.

  2. Once again, it's interesting that none of the issues raised by the blog concerning violations of CSU employment policies were addressed.

    As far as participation on the blog, I have never had any problem joining the discussion, even as a member of the administration.

  3. Wogan's narrative that this blog represents a small number of faculty who "have an axe to grind" is frankly offensive -- it's a way of dismissing all of the posts and substantial issues raised in this blog as inconsequential. I only post occasionally, but I have never felt the blog has been attempted to silence ideas or debate. On occasion, faculty have disagreed and debated posts, usually in the comments section. This is the essence of what a university should be -- an open forum for engaging in debate. That's the model I know myself and many of my colleagues use in our classrooms. If only the university administration could adopt this model, but then I suppose that doesn't exactly serve their interests.

  4. On Phillip Beverly in particular: Phillip and I have profound disagreements which we have explored together in long conversations on a couple of occasions (too few for my taste). At the end of at least one of these Phillip said to me how much he enjoyed the exploration of the profound and difficult issues about which we disagreed and that he respected me as a colleague eager to explore areas of disagreement. Need I add that the respect is mutual?